Voting for a smile

University administrators have justified this policy by arguing that it is important that each "trustee comes to every issue with an open mind." The administration believes young alumni are not elected to represent those who elect them. Rather, YATs are selected to represent the University as a whole and should not come to their positions with preconceived notions, which would undermine "the workings of the Board [of Trustees] and their own effectiveness."

But the same argument could be made about elected judges, who do not represent a specific constituencies and who should not take positions regarding particular cases that might come before them. Just as it is reasonable for voters to have an idea of what type of judicial philosophy a person might apply on the bench, seniors should have some idea of how prospective YATs plan to approach the task and what they consider the key issues facing the University.

The administration makes a flawed assumption: that seniors know their classmates well enough to make an informed choice. While certain candidates, especially those who have served in the USG or as class officers, may be well known to their classmates, candidates' name recognition is not, in itself, indicative of qualifications to serve as a YAT. Rather, all candidates should be allowed the opportunity to more fully represent their experiences, explain their motivations for running, articulate what they wish to accomplish and convince their classmates they are the most qualified to serve.

A compromise between outright campaigning and the current system would have those seeking the office answer a series of questions, participate in public interviews or prepare statements on how they perceive the role of young alumni. Voters will then know not just who the candidates are but also how they would discharge their responsibilities as trustees.

Candidates for YAT presumably have opinions and ideas on issues facing the University. Otherwise, they would not be seeking the office. Indeed, YATs serve on the Board to impart perspectives stemming from their recent experience as undergraduates. Voters, however, never get a chance to hear from the candidates. Allowing candidates to articulate these perspectives does not undermine their ability to consider issues with open minds. Rather than leaving seniors to vote for Mr. or Mrs. Popularity, the University should ensure that voters have the information they need to intelligently determine who will be best suited to serve Princeton's long-term interests.